COUNTY OF THURSTON ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Scott Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 432 F.2d 1198 (7th Cir. 1970)
  …ent has merely adapted an old method to a new use by modifications obvious to one skilled in the art, which does not constitute a patentable invention. Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Elec. Prod. Corp., 149 F. 2d 87 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 326 U.S. 744, 66 S.Ct. 59, 90 L.Ed. 444 (1945). Scott challenges the conclusion of obviousness on the ground that the court failed to award the presumption of validity to its patent under Section 282 of the Patent Code (35 U.S.C. § 282). The presumption of vali…
• Ammerman v. Lou Miller (D.D.C. 1970)
  …nley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Referring to a motion to dismiss it was said in United States v. Thurston County, Neb., 54 F.Supp. 201, 204 (D.C.Neb.1944), affirmed 149 F. 2d 485, (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 744, 66 S.Ct. 58, 90 L.Ed. 444 (1945): “Such a motion no longer tests whether the complaint affirmatively states a cause of action. The rule is that it should be denied, though the complaint be infirm, if it is reasonably conceivable that at the trial…